im not watching the thread so that aint gonna help, sweetcheeks. those sorts of thing aint my style.

im not saying that i'm discouraging treating animals with respect - while it's a totally OK word to use in regards to most animals and beings in general (most of which cannot speak and thus give us any idea on whether or not they want to be referred to with such words) and even humans in YOUR language or whatever, in english it has a lot of negative connotations to use in regards to a human being (or a being that is quite similar to a human, ergo, devil people) that can voice its opinions especially when words like that are kind of frequently used to degrade and belittle people.

i GAVE you suggestions on better words to use that convey what you're trying to say just as well, but if you dont wanna listen then that's a-ok. i'll just be silently judging you from a far, and my judging declares that you're kind of an insensitive dumbass._________________

Last edited by Miss Magenta on Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

You made a point. Still the action remains, how to express the concept i told above ?

Since you claim this word is that bad-bad-bad you should either have another or remove the whole concept of creating emotional response and link with trust and caring.

with the word you quoted above: "gentle". and i didn't say 'tame' was 'bad-bad-bad', just that it was loaded - it has shadings, and people react to those shadings.

and if, as sporko suggests, you really mean "showing humanity/kindness", but not changing the being you are showing that to, then that is a different concept altogether - 'taming' definitely involves making a change to the other being.

english-speakers really can treat animals with respect, you are just on the wrong track. maybe "empathizing", "connecting", "appreciating"? even "accepting" - which means that you take that other creature for whatever it is, without judgement, and appreciate it for what it is._________________aka: neverscared!

well, considering "taming of the shrew" was written before 1600, i would say shakespeare's use is pretty much the original meaning, right?

Since he used to write comedies like Romeo and Juliet, i'd not be sure his word usage does not contain tongue in cheek.

So, I was supposed to laugh when Mercutio cursed the Capulets & Montagues before dying of his sword wounds, and when R & J killed themselves at the end? This explains why high school English Lit was so strange to me._________________

mouse wrote:

almost a shame to waste dennis' talent on him.
except it's always a pleasure to see a good dennis insult.

a question about russian as far as gender: are all animal nouns either feminine or masculine, or are there neuter animal nouns too?

Even herbs do
Probably rooted in pagan "everythign has its soul" concept.

Actually "it" is a very exotic pronoun/form of verb/form of adjective/etc

Usually used with some exotic things that cannot be grasped by limited human mind. For example the Sun - it is so large that you cannot compare itself to you.

Or it might be used when you need to stress than gender concept is not applicable, like in another joke.
- Oh, you delivered! And whom? Is he a boy ?
- No.
- Oh, she is a girl, isn't she?
- No.
- But what ?
- When will grow, then will decide itself!

Actually we don't have a word of cat but rather he-cat and she-cat pair.
Not a dog but he-god and she-dog.

Of course you average peasant could not tell gender for frogs or fishes (and for herbs too ) so they usually have only one word. Which ? who knows. An oak is he and a pine is she. Maybe pine is considered flexible and slender while oak thickset, maybe not.

And this irregularity is definitely a hardship to learn russian, since you did not grown up here you cannot learn it naturally in games. So you would mix genders and sound alien or comical. I guess similar like me regularly mistaking tenses, for we have very few of them and dropping articles since we don't have them

One word would be default, used when gender is not clear or does not matter. Another word would be used when you need to specify a gender.

For most of the words there would be default "male" variant and optional "feminine" suffix. But or animals living closer to household those words would usually be different. Sometimes they would not even share the same root. In general domesticated animals tend to have default feminine word and wild or rare ones - male form. But not always.

For example wolf and bear are "he" while fox is "she"
side note: in kid tales fox usually have a patronym, "daughter of Patrick". Can it be related to red Irish hair ? hardly so. But otherwise no explanation to the trait[i]
Actually in my childhood i though about the fox as a wolf's wife. Though there were tales where they are foes.

You may think that is for both wolf and bear are strong, and the fox is not. And the former rely mostly on brute force while the latter on her slyness.
Good explanation, yet then you come to a hare and a hedgehog a bread-roll, which are "he" as well while definitely being her prey.

Also hunting fishes, like shark or pike, tend to be females, so feminine is not necessarily weak and subdued.
Daisy is female and dandellion is male. Why? who knows...

[i]Not enough confusion ? Do you like roses ?
Роза stands for cultivated plant or for a flower, it is "she"
Шиповник (literally something like "thornkind") would stand for wild plants or for hips. How came?.. go figure

Coming back to domesticated animals i can render few examples.
Say she-horse would be "лошадь" and he-horse would be "конь".
Nothing common. Default word would be the former, which is generally feminine but can represent he-horse as well. However in contexts like war the latter would be most used for ancient warriors mostly used he-horses for war (for a variety of reasons).

He-goat would be "козёл" and she-goat = "коза".
This time those words are related yet the feminine one has reduced root plus feminine ending (not suffix).
This causes kids to frequently forget the latter word and re-create it with usual feminine suffix - "козлиха". Sounds funny.

should i mud the water even more and note that we have not the only feminine suffix, conveying different shades of attitude ?

We can come even closer to the hose and speak of the dogs.
Most default word would be she-dog, "собака"
Yet there is one more almost-default word, "пёс", he-dog.
Actually if you'd use last word about clearly she-dog, that would be an error, but such a minor one that hardly anyone would bather tot correct you. However speaking "собака" of he-dog is perfectly correct if you do not need to stress the gender.
How did we end having two concurring default words? Personally i think it is due to numerous Poland invasions, largest of which we had in the same century times your Shakespeare tamed Kate That is their main word for dogs - http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pies
We also have a word "bitch" (сука) which is used as a technical term in breeding as and a derogatory word in casual language. We also have one more "he-dog" word (кобель), which is treated vulgar and implying nondiscriminatory womanizing behavior. I think it was original Russian word, but aforementioned invasions installed Polish word instead and shifted that word to its narrow vulgar or derogatory niche.

I am not linguist and cannot spill light upon different words for horses.
Perhaps they cam from different language either by invasions or by amalgamation of different ancient tribes. OTOH you also has that "stallion" word that does not share its root with "horse". Probably for ancient peasants and warlords the difference between he-horses and she-horses was so unimaginably high, that just using specializing prefixes or suffixes would not be enough.

So if you ever had crazy idea to learn irregular savage language Russian is, just abandon it outright ))

But the missing part is close to "imprinting", except that is does not turn the object to mindless automata.
Emotional response, joy of being together and sorrow of missing you, trust.

this, i would call love. and one can certainly love animals (and they can love you back).

Arrrgh!
You talk about your love to animal.
I talk about *response*, about animal loving you.

So russian "taming" does imply changing the animal like "befriending" does change your new friend, doesn't it.
But that is (or at least should be, surely you can use that word with "forcefully" sense if you'd choose to, while it would sound unnaturally) a change you should earn, not impose.
If the cat jumps onto you hands - and i repeat the root of "tame" word in russian is "hand" - your hands should be ready to hold it, but at the same time the cat should be willing to jump them and to retract its claws.

The taming is not a thing you cause over object, like... dunno... faceting the stone.
It is a process with two subjects.
Well, you have the leading role, you can offer and you can insist, but it still should be accepted by the other side. If you would say "tame" about "obedient" animal, that is acceptable, but that is a bit unnatural, that shifts the accent. Naturally you would just use "obedient" word. Well, you can use "tame" in "not dangerous, it won't bite you" sense. But not "tamed"

Last edited by Arioch on Sat Nov 17, 2012 12:36 am; edited 3 times in total

befriending! that's the best word, in english, for what you seem to mean. friends are equals; and animals that hang out with you by choice i would guess consider you a friend. there is always a bit of a master/servant feel between the tamed and the tamer. i would say befriending someone doesn't change them, and friendship definitely is something you earn, by common consent.

thus, i would never even attempt to tame sporko, but i am happy to have befriended her (and i totally trust her not to claw my hands). (although whether i could hold her if she jumped into them is another issue.)_________________aka: neverscared!

if i'm getting this correctly, your "tame" is more of a "showing humanity/kindness"--not really changing will or subjugating but more humanizing? what is the russian word for what you are trying to convey?

2. To imbue with humaneness or human kindness; civilize: acts of courtesy that humanize life in a big city.
Relatively. Yet this still imply "it was bad animal, we made it good kind human-like one"
But it still misses the point of how the animal treats you.

Now you are humanized and you may go free and it was nice to meet ya, and drop in sometimes for a cup of tee, and fare the well, see ya!
No.

The "tamed" being would trust you, like you, see you as needed part of its environment, miss you if you're apart.

The dog, that brings you a stick or tracks a hare for you is "well-trained", "obedient", "smart" and all that. But if it does not jump up your chest to lick your face - it is not "tamed"

I can't help but not to refer to French literature.
"You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed"
If "to tame" is "to break" or "to constraint" that "eternal responsibility" is absurd idea.
Oh yes, i broken that horse. Now, what taxation am i adjudged to ? Take my coins, visit ur doctor and we're even.
But if you willingly caused love and trust - that perhaps makes sense.

The russian original word ? if it helps you...

http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/приручить
Interpretation #1 is "too make tame", laconic. The example talks about animals.
Interpretation #3 is more Shakespearean: "To obtain a control over something, to learn manage it to reach your goals". It would be that "load" you told about yet... 1) it is marked as "in transitional sense" 2) the examples are using inanimate things, like lightning and electric current.
And Interpretation #2 - the example talks about human - reads like "by creating emotional attachment in someone to make him obedient, to train him to follow your will'

Well, surely that mentioned "emotional devotion" can be abused, as can trust, love, friendship and whatever. However the fact of emotional attachment feedback is the required criterion for the word.

I doubt that i could convey it any better.

After all this talks i feel curious to see "Taming of the shrew" play. Russian translation are told to frequently have shifted perception from English source, especially when dealing with poetry. I wonder if they managed to keep the plot as you described it yet make it more humanized. OTOH it might really be lo-class vulgar comedy. The Globe surely had to play for or stratas of society

The "tamed" being would trust you, like you, see you as needed part of its environment, miss you if you're apart.

see you as needed, yes - because you are probably providing food and shelter. miss you...not necessarily. taming, in english, does not imply an emotional attachment.

Arioch wrote:

I can't help but not to refer to French literature.
"You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed"
If "to tame" is "to break" or "to constraint" that "eternal responsibility" is absurd idea.
Oh yes, i broken that horse. Now, what taxation am i adjudged to ? Take my coins, visit ur doctor and we're even.
But if you willingly caused love and trust - that perhaps makes sense.

well i don't speak french either, but to me, this makes perfect sense.

if you tame a lion, you have made him, not a wild free lion, but an obedient, domesticated lion. and now you are responsible for his care, because you have removed him from his old life, when he was responsible for himself. it's not a matter of some amount of money you pay, responsibility is more than that.

but a lion who loves you, but is not domesticated - that's not a tame, domesticated lion, that's a befriended lion. and you aren't responsible for him, because he is still free to make his own choices and live his own life._________________aka: neverscared!

there is always a bit of a master/servant feel between the tamed and the tamer

There is inequality, for sure. But in the lines that tamer is (in this moment, in this interaction) more active, more strong, more all-sufficient, and the tamed being is getting kind of unstable, it starts to lack what it was fine without before. It is a voluntary weakness, that it puts upon itself at you desire. It did not needed you, but now it does. It had nothing to lose yet, but now it can lose your company. It trusted you enough to make itself vulnerable. You should be worth it.

That maybe is like adult-kid relationship, you'd expect kid to have some respect for adult authority and be the relationship broken you'd expect kid to be hurt deeper than an adult. OTOH this puts over adult a responsibility to be thoughtful and caring.

Imagine an adult threatening the kid "u do as i say or a leave you here alone". That IS a threat. Imagine a kid threating to leave alone the adult - you'd smail at overly self-assured child.

OTOH if you see a kid hitting an adult you would think like "ill-behaved", but would you see an adult hitting a child, he would have a stroooong explanation to justify his actions.

Those kind of voluntary trust and dependency is implied by the word i know.

now you are responsible for his care, because you have removed him from his old life, when he was responsible for himself. it's not a matter of some amount of money you pay, responsibility is more than that.

but a lion who loves you, but is not domesticated - that's not a tame, domesticated lion, that's a befriended lion. and you aren't responsible for him, because he is still free to make his own choices and live his own life.

well, assign a life-time pension to it

If it went on it's own - it was its choice.
But if you caused the love, then you played "catch me" and then you jump on the plane and flown away, leaving him longer for you, then you're a traitor.